JON CARROLL

Published 4:00 am, Friday, January 4, 2008

The story of Tatiana, the tiger who killed one man and injured two others, is like some kind of magic puzzle. The more answers you get, the more questions remain. There are issues of fact and issues of philosophy, and the issues of philosophy stretch into unexpected areas.

First, because this is America, blame must be assessed. Lawsuits will be forthcoming, and lawyers will make a lot of money, and something will happen, and there will still be one dead human and one dead tiger. Did the young men taunt the tiger? Their lawyer says no, but he would. My guess, which I believe is widely shared, is that they did, but there's no proof.

Is it the fault of the San Francisco Zoo for inadequate tiger cage design? Hardly anyone knew a thing about that issue a week ago, and now we have experts springing up everywhere. Did the zoo fail to handle the situation correctly? I think "yes" is pretty certain to be the answer there.

More important, is it the fault of the San Francisco Zoo, or is it the fault of zoos generally? Do we even need zoos anymore? I mean, they're all very educational and wholesome (except when the elephant shlongs appear), but aren't they glorified carnival midways with an educational veneer to keep the bluestockings happy?

In a strictly economic sense, zoos are just gaudy baubles designed to lure people to the gift shops and the cafes. That's where the money is. Zoos run at a deficit anyway, of course, and are supported by foundations, governments and, yes, people like you with your generous donation to the Bosco Fund - Bosco being the beloved elephant who died in 1976 when he accidentally ate a Styrofoam nachos plate.

There is no Bosco. I made that up.

The forgotten player in all this is Tatiana, perhaps because she has no estate and thus no legal representation. There was a vigil for Tatiana at Ocean Beach a few nights ago, and four people came - six if you count the reporter and the photographer. Seems a shame. Tatiana had little choice about where she was kept, and little say about the conditions of her internment. She depended on the kindnesses of well-intentioned members of another species, which is not an ideal situation.

(Imagine being held captive by extremely sensitive and well-meaning chimpanzees. You might have issues.)

And there's this uncomfortable stat, pointed out by my friend Eric Mankin: number of living humans, billions; number of living tigers, thousands. The World Wildlife Fund places the tiger at "five minutes to midnight," meaning that there are probably 5,000 tigers worldwide, down from an estimated 100,000 a century ago. It might be that soon, the only place you'll be able to find a tiger is a zoo.

Seems like a good argument for zoos, but that sort of misses the point. The declining tiger population is symptomatic of habitat destruction, and habitat zoos - often called national parks - are hard to maintain in less developed countries. Poachers feel free to bribe guards, while environmentalists do not, and we know what that tune sounds like.

So what are we doing when we go to zoos? Perhaps we are seeking an authentic, or at least quasi-authentic, experience? The animals are real, and they smell like animals, and sometimes they behave rudely. We learn 11 facts about the antelope, and we forget 10 of them, but we still gain knowledge.

I'm not sure that everyone at a zoo gets that it's not just another form of television. I wonder if the three young men who may have interacted with Tatiana were perceiving the entire event in terms of virtual reality. It was like playing with a Wii, the Tiger Edition.

Even this "Tatiana" thing I've been using - that's bogus. Tatiana was not anything like a person, and should not need a person's name. The cute name makes the tiger seem more accessible, more approachable, more human. Zoos use the names because names create identity, create empathy, create contributions.

I don't mean zoos are evil. I don't believe that. But I do think the presence of creatures with whom we share this planet should make us do more than gawk. What are we doing when we go to zoos? There's the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet - you can learn more about animal behavior from "Meerkat Manor" than you can at any zoo. Hell, you can learn more about animal behavior by going to a dog park.

Do zoos act as entrances into the natural world? Do they encourage people to learn more about the world around them? Do they allow us to meditate on our own animal natures? Or is it just, like, come see the Long-Necked Weird Thing and the Growly Scary Beast and the Creature With Four Stomachs, right next to the Bearded Lady and Jojo the Dog-Faced Boy?

Here's a rule of thumb: If it's burning bright in the forests of the night, best not to throw rocks at it.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.